Pachter: Without used games, industry will “disintegrate”

TVGB: "Used games has been and will most likely always be a hot topic in the industry. Here to pour fuel on the fire is none other than predictor extraordinaire Michael Pachter, otherwise known as an analyst from Wedbush.

Speaking on his latest episode of Pach Attach, the man reiterated his beliefs that next-gen consoles blocking used games would be a bad move on the part of console manufacturers, to put it lightly."

Actually he makes absolutely no sense and is dead wrong since everything is going digital and you can get brand new games for $5 on steam that were worth $60 6 months ago. And the developer still gets paid.. not gamestop.

So yes... he is a retard if he thinks no used games would kill the games industry... Since the game industry doesnt make money off used games either way. Consoles are going digital as well.

In fact.. anyone who pays $30 for a used game when you can get it brand new for cheaper these days.. is retarded. And I love when gamestop sells a brand new game for $60 and a used copy for $55... lol that is hilarious to me, because you know someone is actually opting to buy the used one for a measily 5 bucks.

According to 2011 stats, PC is only pirated about 3 times more often than consoles (minus PS3 since its piracy rates were negligible apparently). Considering consoles also have a very strong used market and high console licensing fees, I wonder if they aren't struggling more than the PC market; hmmm, have there been any dramatic attempts to fight the used game market lately that would imply it was impacting sales? Day-one DLC, Online Passes, Subscription based multiplayer services, consoles that block used games, and locked single-player content all leap to mind. I'm not saying the PC market doesn't have issues, but they're certainly doing well considering eliminating the viability of used games should have "disintegrated" that branch of the industry years ago.

PC gaming has "alternatives" such as Steam as it presents deals that are equal if not better than MOST used game sales. I could hardly find any used game on the console market that could beat any steam sale prices. And these are not the AAA titles either. It's the one other reason why PC gaming is attractive in the first place.

The problem is, most people buy used games merely because of a few reasons:

a) They cant afford it, so they wait until its a very cheap price b) perhaps they want to RENT instead of buy to check if the sequel is worth playing. c) They just want something to play for a few days to pass time.

If developers aren't going to make decent games or promote it enough to sell, then they might as well go shove it.

For the people that can not buy new games at full price. If they can not buy used games. They probably just won't buy games & wait for sales. That will just hurt everybody. They want people to stop buying used games ? Then they have to throw the customers a bone & make new games cheaper. Otherwise the public will just speak with their wallet

Hate to tell you games are more then likely going to get more expensive next gen... With new technology, means higher resolution textures, means higher details... means more models... Just generally my point is more hours spent making a game... so they will probably hike up the price another $10.

Doesn't matter if you like it or not it's going to happen. You will still be able to purchase used games but will need a license in order to play it. Just like Diablo 3, in order to play a single player game you have to be on line!

Well then the game industry WILL DEFINITELY disintegrate at one point in the future by this buffoons logic. At some point physical sales of games will cease, and at that point so will used game sales.

In all probability in the future you won't even own the games or media you play, it will all just be streamed over the internet.

The game industry will not disintegrate, it will just adapt and move on. If it was to disintegrate then the cause would be the continuation of the current trend towards less and less mid tier game studios being able to operate at a profit.

How anyone can disagree with les_grossmans comment above is beyond me. Whilst there are a good few games out there that do actually merit a £40 price tag, the vast majority do not, and should be priced as such.

The rights to lend games to friends has almost been taken away from us through network passes etc, but great games flourish under these conditions. I borrowed RDR from a friend, and from that bought the game on PSN, convinced my brother to buy a copy, and thus Rockstar has profitted from their quality.

The ones who are worried about how these issues will affect their sales must be producing overpriced products in the first place. Maybe they should look into this as a solution to the problem.

All goodpoints edonis, and I have no issues with giving my money to the devs rather than the retailers, but bear in mind also that its the devs and publishers who decide on the RRP of games, and most get it wrong by pricing their games too high in the first place. They also don't help themselves when you see some of the prices for downloadable versions, higher than a physical copy that has production and distribution costs factored in.

If I have the choice of getting a game used for £15 below RRP, or see it on the PS store for the same price, I'll take the downloadable version and the devs can take all the profits. But they don't. Why?

So the ball is back in their court, but rather than playing the game, and adapting their style, they want to pick up the ball, go home, and change the bloody rules.

The customer/manufacturer relationship is a two way thing, but in this case, its only viewed in one direction and is driven by greed.